DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD and another vs AZIZ-
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Director-General, National Savings, Islamabad against an order of the Service Tribunal. The respondent, a U.D.C. Selection Grade-9, was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for unauthorised absence from duty and was removed from service. Upon appeal before the Service Tribunal, the respondent did not contest the merits but sought leniency. The Tribunal modified the penalty of removal from service to reduction to his substantive post of U.D.C. (B-7) for two years with related directions. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was competent to modify the punishment and whether the case involved a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal was fully competent to modify the departmental punishment in its discretion, and no relevant factor was ignored. Furthermore, the case did not raise a substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to modify a punishment awarded by a departmental authority?
- Does the reduction of a penalty by the Service Tribunal involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the Service Tribunal in reducing a service penalty?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973
' FAZAL KARIM, J.--The respondent, Aziz-ur-Rehman, is U.D.C. Selection Grade-9 in the Regional Directorate of National Savings, Rawalpindi. He was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for unauthorised absence from duty, was found guilty and was awarded the penalty of removal from service by the departmental authority. He appealed before the Service Tribunal; there, he did not press his appeal on merits but prayed for leniency. The learned Members of the Tribunal referred to the fact that the respondent was a young man; that there had been no complaint against him and that he had been a well-behaved Clerk with clean record, and were inclined to take a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal from service "to that of reduction of his substantive post of U.D.C. (B-7) for a period of two years" with a direction that "the intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, and this order will be effective from the date of passing the original order viz. 28-8-1994 "
2. The Director-General, National Savings, Islamabad and the Director, Regional Directorate of National Savings, Rawalpindi now seek leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's order.
3. We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney-General in support of the petition. There is no question that the Service Tribunal was competent to modify the order of the departmental authority in the manner it did. The question whether the punishment should be reduced lay in the discretion of the Service Tribunal. It is not contended that any factor relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion, which may have weighed against the respondent was not taken into consideration. Otherwise too, the case does not seem to involve a substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212, clause (3) of the Constitution.
4. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.